Missouri Should Drop Mandatory DEI CLE for Lawyers
Most Missourians have never thought about Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements for lawyers. It’s not at the top of their policy priorities.
But what Missouri requires attorneys to study every year says something deeper about the role of government and the boundaries of professional regulation.
Right now, that line is being tested.
Missouri should eliminate mandatory DEI coursework for lawyers and return CLE to its proper purpose: maintaining professional competence, not enforcing contested viewpoints.
What CLE is actually for
Continuing Legal Education exists for a simple reason. Lawyers need to stay sharp.
They need to understand changes in the law, ethics rules, procedure, and the practical skills required to represent clients effectively. That’s how they guarantee our rights in the courtroom.
DEI coursework does not fit into that mission.
Even the American Bar Association backed off from mandatory DEI CLE requirements.
Missouri is part of a relatively small group of states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon, that require lawyers to complete a specific “bias” or “diversity” CLE credit. Most states do not impose this kind of targeted mandate.
Missouri is the Conservative outlier among that group.
When regulation becomes ideology
Courts have long held that mandatory bar requirements must be “germane” to regulating the legal profession. In plain English, the state can require education that helps lawyers do their jobs. It cannot force them to adopt or participate in ideological positions unrelated to that purpose.
In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court held that mandatory bar structures cannot fund or compel support for ideological activities outside the core mission of regulating the profession.
Mandatory DEI CLE falls into that category.
Once training moves from concrete skills into contested frameworks about society, bias, and identity, it moves from professional education to compelled viewpoint participation.
Missouri courts are already facing this problem
DEI mandates continue to show up in Missouri through professional rules, accreditation standards, and CLE expectations tied to the practice of law.
That creates a real concern for public trust.
Courts are supposed to apply the law neutrally. When ideological frameworks are embedded into the requirements governing attorneys, it raises a fair question: are we promoting a particular worldview?
If we are, shouldn’t the voters get a say in what’s being promoted?
Missouri voters elected Mike Kehoe with a mandate to eliminate DEI in state government. They gave him supermajorities to make sure it happened.
For unelected judges to introduce DEI into the court system through the back door of CLE requirements undermines our democratic system.
One-size-fits-all requirements do not fit the legal profession
Law is not a single job. It is a collection of highly specialized practices.
A tax attorney structuring corporate transactions, a patent lawyer working on technical filings, and a rural real estate attorney closing land deals do not share the same day-to-day realities.
CLE hours are limited. Every required hour crowds out something else.
If the goal is competence among those practicing law in our state, requirements should stay tightly connected to the actual practice of law.
The evidence problem
Supporters of mandatory DEI training often assume it works.
Across studies, a consistent pattern emerges:
- – Evidence of effectiveness is limited and uneven
- – Training often changes awareness, not behavior
- – Results depend heavily on long-term, sustained programs
CLE is not long-term or deeply integrated. It is a short, one-off session designed to check a requirement box. That is the exact format least likely to produce meaningful change.
The better path forward: Make it optional
Lawyers who find DEI coursework useful should be free to take it. Bar associations should be free to offer it. Firms can encourage it.
Mandatory DEI CLE asks the state to do something it was never meant to do. It asks regulators not just to ensure competence, but to shape the worldview of legal practitioners.
Lawyers shouldn’t be forced to undergo ideological training.
Missourians should be able to choose the lawyer who is best able to represent them, regardless of whether they’ve undergone indoctrination into the worldview of unelected judges.
Lawyers should be free to take training that is germane to their practice.
Missourians should be able to choose a lawyer who’s spent their time learning DEI or a lawyer who’s spent their time building relevant professional skills.
The bottom line
Continuing Legal Education exists to ensure lawyers understand the law and can serve their clients effectively.
Mandatory DEI training doesn’t do that.
Missouri should restore CLE to its proper role and make DEI coursework optional.
The state legislature should do all it can to move SB 1311 and HB 2086.
Andy Bakker
Executive Director
Liberty Alliance USA